Sean DeMars recently wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition about why he went from loving Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) to being deeply concerned about its morality. He makes several passing shots at the sport that are never developed, a few preemptive counter-rebuttals, and then spends a great deal of his limited real estate on instructing the reader on how they should go about making an ethical decision about MMA. What seems to be his two main objections can be distilled down to these two basic points:

1. MMA is injurious in its intent (and therefore wrong).
2. Violent entertainment is morally wrong, which MMA commodifies.

I’ll respond to each of these in turn, then offer what I believe is a better way forward to advance the discourse on the morality of MMA and a Christian understanding of both the sport and violence more broadly.

“MMA is Injurious in its Intent”

DeMars writes, “The goal of football is to advance a ball and score points. Injury is a risk, not the primary purpose of the sport. When a player gets a concussion, it’s a bug, not a feature, of the game.” 

This is essentially a rehash of yesteryear’s argument, advanced initially by fighter-turned-Catholic apologist Scott Sullivan. The problem with this statement, though, is several things. 

First, while DeMars asserts that concussions are not a “feature” in the game of football, he has the entire history of the sport to contend with. Even with the NFL’s historic low season of concussions in 2023, there were still a staggering 182. Secondly, does DeMars really believe that risk is not a feature in football? Who wants to play a sport that has no risk? Thirdly, as to the assertion that MMA’s purpose is to injure, how does he know this? Similarly, how does he know that no one who plays football doesn’t have the intent to harm? Perhaps we should consider the testimony of fighters.

• In Malinda Diffee’s interview with CNN, she said: “I feel the biggest misconception about this sport is that it’s all about brutality. I wish people could see what we fighters see: the honor and respect that is a part of what we do. When I train, I’m not training to hurt someone. I’m training to be the strongest I can be. How much can my body take? How much willpower do I have?”
• Former UFC title contender and Pride star Frank Trigg states his purposes for fighting in this way: “I fight for the reality of it…I fight to show that my training works.”
• Writing for MMA Weekly, journalist Matt Hill notes, “Some people think that these men must be barbarians who are mean-spirited with one goal in mind, to hurt other people at all costs. Other people view them as modern-day gladiators who are willing to fight for a cause when they deem necessary. After talking to a number of them, though, I have found that fighters fight for many different reasons […] some fighters claim that they fight simply because they can. Others fight for the income, others because they love the martial arts, still others fight for the fame and the women that come with being a professional athlete. One man even said that he fights because he was coaxed to by a higher power […] we’ll call this instance ‘divine intervention.’”

So, is it the purpose of MMA to injure another person? It’s certainly not to make them feel comfortable; it’s to win the fight. That’s the purpose. But the way one wins is already embedded in the sport’s name: it’s mixed. A victory can be achieved by submission, knockout, technical knockout, or a decision that goes to the judge’s scorecards. It is not, as DeMars asserts, where “the reward goes to the fighter who can hurt his opponent the most.” 

The strategy employed by the fighters is far more diverse than we might be led to believe if we read only DeMars’ article. Ironically, DeMars is critical of MMA, but if he is consistent with his own position, he will have to jettison his participation in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, or at least just the arm bars, which he writes, “[…] every armbar is meant to crush, tear or break.” Perhaps this reveals more about him than about MMA. This objection, where the purpose of the sport is to harm or injure the opponent, is an excellent critique of slap fighting, not MMA. 

“Violent Entertainment is Inherently Wrong”

One significant difficulty in engaging with this objection is that DeMars has not developed any theology of violence nor defined the term. Presumably, he connects the murder of Able to “just how brutal the sport really is” and then a thought experiment of sitting ringside at a UFC match where the injuries of a broken and bloody nose, ACL tear, and broken ribs all take place within seconds of a fight beginning. I will assume that by brutal and violent he means it results in injuries. 

If the sport is as brutal as he depicts, there should be ample data to support his claims. DeMars cites a single source asserting, “Audiences pay to see people get hurt.” So, how safe (or unsafe) is the MMA? Let’s consider these seven studies that compare it with similar combat sports or similar injuries:

• A study by the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine examined 171 MMA matches between 2001 and 2005. The most common injuries were lacerations to the face or damage to the eye, nose, and hand. Compared to boxing, the study concluded that the lower knockout rates in MMA may have contributed to a lesser risk of brain damage.
• A similar study conducted in 2015 by the University of Alberta concluded that while MMA is certainly a bloodier sport, it is comparatively safer than boxing, which is more likely to leave the competitor unconscious.
• A ten-year review of MMA injuries was published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine that relied upon data gathered through American and Japanese-sanctioned fights that were video recorded. Of the 642 matches examined, 28 percent were halted because of impact to the head. The study concluded that blunt-force head trauma resulted in the highest proportion of match stoppages.
• A more detailed and broad review of fight injuries, a meta-analysis was conducted in 2014 and published by the Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine, examining six different studies on the rate and type of injuries, the data drawn from a variety of medical and sports science publications. The severity of injury was explicitly excluded from this study, which discovered that fights that end in submission will sustain fewer injuries than those that end in a knockout or technical knockout.
• The Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine released a study that drew data gathered from 2000-2013, analyzing over 1000 MMA fighters and 500 boxers. It concluded that the pattern shared between MMA and boxing was indeed similar, but with some key differences. First, while an MMA fighter is more likely to experience an injury, the kinds of injuries are varied compared to boxing. Secondly, while MMA fighters experience more injuries, they are of less severity, while boxers are more likely to experience head trauma.
• Another study published in 2018 by Sports Medicine examined team contact sports, where it was revealed that rugby proved to be the sport with the greatest risk of concussions by the participants, both in practice and in competition.
• Also, the interpretation of the word “severity” is critical in determining whether those kinds of injuries are an acceptable level of risk relative to other sports activities. One of the few articles that commented on this was published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which concluded, “Injury rates in regulated professional MMA competition are similar to other combat sports; the overall risk of critical sports-related injury seems to be low.”

While DeMars dismisses this saying, “we should ponder whether an image-bearer consenting to potential injury or death can make such violence permissible,” he misses the point. Consent between fighters by itself isn’t to establish MMA’s morality alone, but to prevent it from witnessing an assault, if only one person consents. But that’s not what’s taking place with MMA. It is its own distinct variety of violence.

Despite how much MMA promoters or DeMars want to liken it to the ancient gladiatorial games, no one has ever died in the UFC. And despite this passing assertion, “This isn’t training, where partners work with restraint and respect,” there are numerous displays of respect that should be delt with honestly, such as the touching of gloves, the respect to rules, the submission to a win, the embrace between fighters following their bout, and the constraints fighters work within in aren’t a “no holds barred” event, but a restraint of 108 rules to avoid unnecessary or permanent injuries.

The Plurality of Spectators

What also requires nuance at this point is that there is not a singular audience or spectator watching MMA, but a plurality of audiences. To simplify it, there is a difference between how someone with a background in wrestling, boxing, and martial arts watches MMA and how someone without such a background watches it. Each one comes with a different set of lenses and motivations. The same is, of course, true of every other sport. 

Additionally, where one watches and with whom they watch also makes a difference. If you attend a UFC fight night at the arena, it has its own atmosphere, distinct from watching the fight at home. The untrained spectator who watches an MMA fight because they desire to see a bloody, violent fight is watching for the wrong reasons and is also in a different posture than the person who watches with technical acumen. 

The issue I take with DeMars’ article (and many objectors like him) is that he writes as if the technical audience does not exist or can watch without being tainted. They then, in turn, burden the conscience of other Christians without ever developing a cogent argument against the sport.

Going Back to the Right Starting Point

Here is where we should consider what the proper starting point should be to examine the morality of MMA. DeMars lets his readers know what his starting point was, and it wasn’t the Word of God, but rather his subjective emotions: “[I]n a single moment while watching a fiercely contested match, I changed my mind about MMA. I saw a fighter get knocked unconscious.” 

While our experiences shape our conscience, they are neither foundational nor authoritative. Instead, our conscience should ultimately be held captive to the Word of God, which is both. In that case, I would like to suggest that is where we should begin developing a moral appraisal of MMA from the ground up. We should first ask, “What does the bible say about this?” Space forbids a full development of all the biblical data, but some relevant lines of evidence will be provided below.

Scripture, Violence, and MMA

Obviously, we don’t find a term that wasn’t coined until the 20^th century in the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, so we must break MMA down into its constituent parts and examine them in turn. MMA rests at the intersection of being an individual combat sport that utilizes a wide range of fighting techniques, including but not limited to striking, kicking, and grappling. Do we find any of these pieces in scripture? Here are a few:

1. The idea of running a race is used in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 to symbolize the Christian life and the pursuit of faith. 
2. In 2 Timothy 2:5, Paul compares the dedicated lifestyle of an athlete to the diligence required in a believer’s life, highlighting the importance of following Christ’s teachings faithfully.
3. 1 Timothy 4:8, Paul acknowledges that exercise, “bodily training,” has some value. The Greek word gumnasia, is where we derive the word gymnasium.
4. The imagery of boxing and fighting is used to illustrate the spiritual battles believers face. In 1 Corinthians 9:26-27 and 2 Timothy 4:7, Paul likens his efforts in spreading the Gospel to a boxing match or a fight, highlighting the need for endurance and steadfastness.
5. In 1 Corinthians 9:25, Paul mentions the crown that athletes receive after winning a race, paralleling it to the eternal reward that believers strive for through their faithfulness.
6. Training and discipline. Hebrews 12:11 draws a connection between the discipline of physical training and the discipline required for spiritual growth. This metaphor emphasizes the need for effort and diligence in pursuing a relationship with God.
7. Philippians 3:14 speaks of “pressing on toward the goal,” which can be understood in the context of an athlete striving to achieve a goal. This metaphor encourages believers to continue pursuing spiritual growth and the call of God.
8. Winning the Prize. In Philippians 3:14, Paul speaks of the “prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” This prize can be likened to the rewards or recognition an athlete receives after a victorious effort.

The frequent positive use of sporting metaphors is more than just a strong suggestion that the author of Hebrews and the Apostle Paul did not regard sports, including combat sports (like wrestling and boxing), as morally questionable enterprises. If they did, then it stands to reason they would have used different metaphors to make their point. Rather, Scripture says, “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12) as opposed to something like “steal the good theft” or “mock the good mockery.” The positive metaphor assumes some venue of proper use.

Self-Defense and Combat

The positive use of these metaphors certainly carves out space for sports and competition. But is there any evidence in the bible about training for war, combat, or the skills used in fighting that would lend themselves to think one way or another about MMA? Consider the following lines of evidence:

1. Proficiency with the bow is a recurring motif, with various passages explicitly connecting its usage to skill and training. Instances include Jonathan’s cautionary words to David while practicing archery (1 Samuel 20:18-23). Additionally, warriors from the tribe of Benjamin are described as adept bowmen and valiant fighters (1 Chronicles 8:40).
2. The concept of preparing for warfare is lauded in a broader context. A verse that encapsulates this sentiment is “Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle” (Psalm 144:1).
3. Mention is made of individuals characterized as valiant and formidable warriors. Examples encompass David’s renowned “mighty men” (2 Samuel 23:8, 20), the courageous fighters aligned with Gideon (Judges 7:7), the trio of mighty men who breached the Philistine camp (1 Chronicles 11:18), and the esteemed “mighty men of valor” engaged in battle (1 Chronicles 12:8) and when Abraham rescued Lot, he led his trained men into battle (Genesis 14:14).

Let’s step back for a moment and think, how does one become a mighty warrior? How does one become a valiant fighter? How does one become a mighty man? How does one become trained for warfare? They train. They bloodied each other. It was a necessary violence that is worth visiting and becoming familiar with. And if it’s going to be something like warfighting or combative arms, it isn’t tossing a ball back and forth casually in the back yard; it’s a dress rehearsal that is intended to mimic what the enemy is going to attempt to impose upon you in battle. If you think that soldiers trained by love-tapping each other with nerf-covered swords to avoid being bruised and beaten, then you are too steeped in the comforts of American Western culture. 

The Necessity of Some Violence

The goodness of training to fight is one of the most beautiful expressions of love for neighbor because it prepares you for the day that you pray will never come: the moment when you hope you can self-sacrificially stand between yourself and an assailant and protect those you love. Men are given the duty to be warrior protectors. 

The harder they train on the mat, in the dojo, in practice, the more prepared they will be for the day of testing. It’s a good thing to experience a bloody, broken nose and push through it. We should not be fooled into thinking that when a wickedly violent man attacks you with the intent to maim, injure, and cause permanent bodily harm, that when they draw blood, they will step back and say, “Oh, my bad, I’ll give you a moment to recover.” It is not a sinful thing to have a capacity to do violence, learn it, visit it, and be restrained from acting upon it until the time comes. 

At the minimum, there is a place for MMA in self-defense training for our warfighters, police officers, married men, and fathers, so they can disciple their boys to be future men and warrior protectors. If we are going to have a place carved out where we train in violence, what forbids one from watching two or more compete? What forbids enjoying watching a competition with the same discipline and godly restraint we learn in training? What keeps us from seeing who is the best at this craft and from appreciating the gifts one has been given? The miscalculated view of intent, the overappraisal of brutality, and the underdevelopment of studying the biblical evidence should lead us confidently away from Sean DeMars’ dismissal of MMA. Only after laying a more accurate and biblical foundation and framework for violence can we discuss the concerning aspects of MMA and the entertainment enterprise surrounding the UFC that I also share.

Conclusion

Proverbs 18:17 instructs us that, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” DeMars concludes his articles with a rather sanctimonious suggestion, stating that, “It may take time for others to understand the problems involved in MMA.” I sincerely hope the discourse going forward can elevate above this appeal to emotionalism. To throw out the entire sport is not only unwise, but it is also misleading Christians and burdening their conscience to subtly suggest they are in sin where they might not be. 

We need to have a better, honest, biblically grounded dialogue about all things, including MMA, going forward.